User:Grimmy999/US v. Yee

U.S. v. Bonds, 12 F.3d 540 (6th Cir. 1993), is a landmark United States District Court case in which DNA Evidence was first allowed to be admitted into a US District Court for a trial. Following a six week long Frye hearing in front of a Magistrate Judge which decided to allow the evidence, the decision was appealed to the District Court Judge. Agreeing with the Magistrate Judge's opinion, the court allowed the evidence to be admitted, leading to the subsequent conviction of three Cleveland Hells Angels motor cycle gang members, Steven Wayne Yee, Mark Verdi, and John Ray Bonds for homicide.

Background
On the night of February 27, 1988, David Hartlaub stopped to make a night deposit at the Sandusky Mall in Perkins Township, Ohio. Three members of the Cleveland Hells Angels motorcycle gang planned to avenge the shooting of a fellow gang member on year previous by a member of the Sandusky Outlaws Motorcycle Club, a rival motorcycle gang, in Joliet, Illinois. The prosecution's theory was that the defendants had mistaken the yellow van Hartlaub drove for their target.

Over the course of the investigation, blood found inside Hartlaub's van was determined by serology to not belong to him. Enzymes from the blood spatter, which are only found in 1% of the Caucasion population also were found to exist in Bonds's blood. Federal Investigators decided to use a new technique, DNA Profiling to attempt to prove that the DNA in the blood found in the van matched Bonds's DNA.

The admission of this new forensic evidence formed the basis of the legal action surrounding this case. Prior to being admitted as evidence, the District Court Judge called for a hearing before a Magistrate Judge to determine admissibility. Agreeing with the Magistrate Judge's opinion, the District Court judge allowed the DNA evidence to be admitted, and eventually all three defendants were convicted.

After the conviction, an appeal to the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals followed which lead to this opinion.

Magistrate's Hearing
During the period from June 26-September 12, 1990, an approximately six weeks long Frye hearing was conducted by Carr, in which a dozen expert witnesses testified and eleven lawyers argued over the admissibility of DNA evidence.

The Magistrate presented his Report and Recommendation on October 26, 1990. The report, which was lauded by the [[District Court Judge] Potter, recommended that the Motion to admit DNA evidence be granted; and that the defendants' motion to exclude the DNA evidence be denied.

District Court Ruling
Following an appeal of the Magistrate Judge's ruling, the Defense appealed the ruling allowing DNA evidence to the District Court Judge. Because a the Magistrate's ruling was not binding, the final decision to admit evidence rested in the District Court Judge. Further, the District Court was required to make a de novo review of the Magistrate Judge's ruling.

The District Court was not persuaded by the objections of the defense to the Magistrate's report, and granted the Prosecution's motion to admit DNA evidence, and denied the Defendants' motion to exclude the evidence.

Decision of the Court
By the time the 6th Circuit ruled on this case, the 2nd Cir. had affirmed the admissability of DNA in U.S. v. Jakobetz, and the 8th Circuit had reversed itself and upheld the admission of DNA evidence in U.S. v. Two Bulls.

Issues for Appeal
The three defendants raised a number of issues on appeal.
 * 1) The NAS Review
 * 2) The scientific reliability of the FBI's technique doing DNA testing
 * 3) Prejuidicial effect of the evidence
 * 4) Sufficiency of the evidence to allow for a search warrant
 * 5) Whether federal agent exceeded constitutional bounds in "tagging along" during state search
 * 6) Admissibility of ownership by another of a similar gun

Admissibility of DNA Evidence
This case was one of several cases traveling through the legal system around the same time, dealing with the admissability of DNA evidence. However, the hearing before Magistrate Judge James G. Carr was the largest and most extensive hearing on the subject.